USA vs Selbmann

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. L:23-PO-00878-ABJ
Case No. L:23-PO-00879-ABJ
CLAUDIA COLEINE,
LAURA SELBMANN
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CORRECT CLEAR ERROR
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 35(a)
This matter comes before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Correct Clear
Error Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a). ECF No. 39; ECF No. 36.
Defendants’ arguments are based on Double Jeopardy claims stemming from the counts to
which they entered guilty pleas. This Court FINDS: there is no clear error, and furthermore,
the Court does not have jurisdiction over the request since it is beyond the 14-day time
limit set out in Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). As such, the Court will not rule on the Double
Jeopardy issue.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On 	October 	27, 	2023, 	the 	Defendants 	were 	charged 	with 	three 	Class 	B
misdemeanors, thermal trespass, violating a closure and possessing a mineral resource.
ECF Nos. 1, 4, 5; ECF Nos. 1, 4, 5. After a series of status conferences, the case was set
for an Initial Appearance on May 15, 2024, with the aid of an Italian interpreter. ECF Nos.
FILED
U.S. Magistrate Judge
4:46 pm, 6/18/24
Case L:23-po-00879-ABJ Document 44 Filed 06/18/24 Page 1 of 5

2
29, 38; ECF Nos. 27, 37. The Court was informed that the Defendants had plea agreements
with the government and would be entering guilty pleas to some counts. On May 13, 2024,
the government filed five additional charges—the final pending charges prior to the change
of plea included: one count of violating a permit, one count of possession of mineral
resources, two counts of thermal trespass, two counts of a closure violation and two counts
of destroying a mineral resource. ECF Nos. 1, 4, 5, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34; ECF Nos. 1, 4, 5,
28, 29, 30, 31, 32. The repeated charges covered two dates and two areas of Yellowstone
National Park: a set of violations on October 20, 2023, at Midway Geyser Basin; and a set
of violations on October 21, 2023, at Mammoth Hot Springs.
On May 15, 2024, after the Court advised the Defendants of all the charges, the
government set forth the terms of the plea agreement which entailed the Defendants
pleading guilty to one count of violating a permit, one count of possession of a mineral
resource, one count of thermal trespass, one count of a closure violation and one count of
destroying a mineral resource with agreed upon fine amounts for all violations and a term
of probation. Of the latter three mentioned counts, the parties had not agreed upon the
specific counts to which the Defendants would plead to, and the government left it to the
Defendants 	to 	choose 	which 	counts. 	After 	conferring 	privately 	with 	counsel, 	the
Defendants stated they would plead to the counts involving the Midway Geyser Basin on
October 20, 2023. ECF Nos. 30, 32, 33; ECF Nos. 29, 30, 32. The Court took the guilty
pleas, inquired of the Defendants under oath for a factual basis, all parties agreed to the
sufficiency of the factual basis and after sentencing arguments from both parties, the Court
Case L:23-po-00879-ABJ Document 44 Filed 06/18/24 Page 2 of 5

3
imposed sentence, adopting the parties’ joint recommendations for the financial penalties
and probationary term. ECF Nos. 38, 40; ECF Nos. 37, 38.
The Defendants filed the pending Motion on May 22, 2024, seven days after the
Court pronounced sentence, and now claim that pleading to, and being sentenced to, both
the possession of mineral resources and the destroying of mineral resources violated the
Double Jeopardy clause and that this is “clear error” for purposes of Rule 35(a). This issue
was not raised at the change of plea hearing or at sentencing.
The government filed its response to the instant Motion, arguing that a defendant
may not raise a Double Jeopardy claim after a guilty plea and conviction are final, and the
two counts claimed to be duplicative were factually distinct instances and therefore Double
Jeopardy does not apply. ECF No. 42; ECF No. 40.
II. 	LEGAL DISSCUSSION
Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states, “[w]ithin 14 days after
sentencing, the court may correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or
other clear error.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). A court’s authority under Rule 35(a) is “intended
to be very narrow and to extend only to those cases in which an obvious error or mistake
has occurred in the sentence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 Advisory Comm. Notes. The 14-day
time limit is a hard-set timeframe the court has in which to issue an order correcting the
sentence. U.S. v. McGaughy, 670 F.3d 1149, 1158 (10 th Cir. 2012). A court only has
authority to correct an obvious error within the timeframe for filing an appeal. Id. This
14-day time limit is jurisdictional and a court loses jurisdiction to correct a sentence after
Case L:23-po-00879-ABJ Document 44 Filed 06/18/24 Page 3 of 5

4
14 days, even when a motion to correct is timely filed. Id. at 1157 (citing U.S. v. Griffin,
524 F.3d 71, 83-84 (1st Cir. 2008)).
Under this premise, the purpose of Rule 35(a) is to correct those errors which are so
obvious as to not require argument or briefings from the parties, but which are obvious
errors on the face of the record. The Defendants’ arguments in this case were not for the
correction of this type of error. A “clear error” is one that would not require a seven-page
brief full of arguments and case citations to which the government was obviously entitled
to respond, and did respond, with its own seven-page brief with arguments and citations to
the contrary.
Defendants argue that two of the citations they entered guilty pleas to were obvious
in their duplication, and that everyone involved “overlooked” this clear error. Yet,
Defendants did not file their motion until the seventh day of the 14-day time limit.
Furthermore, the government argues these citations are not duplicate, and each charge is a
distinct and separate violation. Based upon the information contained in the Defendants’
Motion alone, the Court did not find it “clear” that these were duplicate charges, nor could
the Court issue a ruling within the 14-day time limit unless the government conceded and
agreed on the “clear error,” which they did not. Therefore, the Court could not correct the
sentence within the seven days left under Rule 35, and now has no jurisdiction to do so.
//
//
//
Case L:23-po-00879-ABJ Document 44 Filed 06/18/24 Page 4 of 5

5
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion is DENIED due to lack
of jurisdiction; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Court will not address the Double Jeopardy claim
contained within the Motion in light of its lack of jurisdiction.
Dated this 18th day of June, 2024.
_________________________
STEPHANIE A. HAMBRICK
U.S. Magistrate Judge
__	___________	__	____	__ ______	_ __________	_______	__	____________	_________	___	________	__	___________	____________________
STEPPPPPHA	H	H	H 	NI	N E A HAM	M	MBRICK
Case L:23-po-00879-ABJ Document 44 Filed 06/18/24 Page 5 of 5